Effects of intrathecal administration of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine on cerebral pial microcirculation, cortical tissue oxygenation, and electrocortical activity in the early post-resuscitation period in a porcine cardiac arrest model

Hyoung Youn Lee; Najmiddin Mamadjonov; Kyung Woon Jeung; Yong Hun Jung; Wan Young Heo; Yong Soo Cho; Byung Kook Lee; Tag Heo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313257

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 20, 2024
4 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Masaki Mogi, Editor PONE-D-24-30125Effects of intrathecal administration of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine on cerebral pial microcirculation, cortical tissue oxygenation, and electrocortical activity in the early post-resuscitation period in a porcine cardiac arrest modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jeung, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript is well evaluated by the reviewer.Respond to the reviewer's comments appropriately. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Masaki Mogi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on methods of sacrifice. 3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <S1_Data>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address-Ages more specific than whole numbers-Internet protocol (IP) address-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)-Contact information such as phone number or email address-Location data-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The reviewed manuscript written by Hyoung Youn Lee and co-authors aims to assess the effects of intrathecal administration of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine on various brain tissue parameters. These include cerebral pial microcirculation, cortical tissue oxygenation, and electrocortical activity in a porcine cardiac arrest model after successful resuscitation. The manuscript is well-written and structured, the presented data and appropriate statistical analysis support the Author's arguments and conclusions. The study was carried out with all appropriate ethical aspects, and I have just few minor notes to address: 1. I think that the Authors should extend and highlight the Limitations section at the end of the discussion by adding the information about other methods that might have been included in this study in order to better evaluate the effects in a comprehensive manner. For example, they can mention the other methods that make a real-time assessment of cerebral blood flow (LSCI, Photoplethysmography, Doppler, etc.) or brain tissue biopsy/autopsy to assess structural effects on the cerebral cortex tissue. This can show the perspectives for further investigations in this direction. 2. The Authors mention that the doses of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine were chosen based on clinical studies, have the Authors assessed these doses using the dose conversion between animals and human via equivalent dose calculation? How does it correspond? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Gennadii Piavchenko ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313257.r001
Revision 1
16 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewer #1, Firstly, we appreciate you for your comments. They were very helpful in improving our manuscript and included very useful points that we had not previously recognized. After due consideration, the manuscript was revised as described below. Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf : Our manuscript was revised to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on methods of sacrifice. : The following sentences are included in the method section to comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements. - All experiments were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of Chonnam National University Hospital (CNUH IACUC-22028) and performed in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The investigators who performed the experiments had completed an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee training course on animal care and handling. All surgical interventions were performed under sevoflurane anesthesia, and every effort was made to prevent unnecessary suffering of the animals. - After intramuscular administration of ketamine (20 mg/kg) and xylazine (2.2 mg/kg), they were anesthetized with sevoflurane, endotracheally intubated, and mechanically ventilated with a mixture of nitrous oxide and oxygen (7:3). Sevoflurane was titrated to achieve an appropriate anesthetic depth (no pedal withdrawal reflex and no increase in arterial pressure or heart rate). - Animals that achieved ROSC received 5.5 h of intensive care under sevoflurane anesthesia. - None of the animals reached the predetermined humane endpoints for euthanasia (systolic arterial pressure <60 mmHg, heart rate <40 beats/min, or seizure) until the end of the post-ROSC intensive care period. - Immediately after the post-ROSC intensive care period, the animals were humanely euthanized with a rapid intravenous bolus injection of potassium chloride under deep sevoflurane anesthesia. In addition, the title and abstract indicate that this is an animal experiment. The ARRIVE guidelines checklist is submitted (S1 File). 3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <S1_Data>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws. Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared: -Name, initials, physical address -Ages more specific than whole numbers -Internet protocol (IP) address -Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.) -Contact information such as phone number or email address -Location data -ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order) Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. : All identifying data has been removed from the S1 Data file. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. : We reviewed the reference list. We ensure that the reference list is complete and correct. The changes to the reference list were mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies our revised manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The reviewed manuscript written by Hyoung Youn Lee and co-authors aims to assess the effects of intrathecal administration of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine on various brain tissue parameters. These include cerebral pial microcirculation, cortical tissue oxygenation, and electrocortical activity in a porcine cardiac arrest model after successful resuscitation. The manuscript is well-written and structured, the presented data and appropriate statistical analysis support the Author's arguments and conclusions. The study was carried out with all appropriate ethical aspects, and I have just few minor notes to address: 1. I think that the Authors should extend and highlight the Limitations section at the end of the discussion by adding the information about other methods that might have been included in this study in order to better evaluate the effects in a comprehensive manner. For example, they can mention the other methods that make a real-time assessment of cerebral blood flow (LSCI, Photoplethysmography, Doppler, etc.) or brain tissue biopsy/autopsy to assess structural effects on the cerebral cortex tissue. This can show the perspectives for further investigations in this direction. : We observed only pial arterioles on the surface of the brain among the cerebrovascular system. To address this limitation, the sentences “Fifth, we could not determine the impact of intrathecal vasodilator administration on penetrating vessels, capillaries, or large cerebral arteries, as we observed only pial arterioles on the surface of the brain. To better understand the effects of intrathecal vasodilator administration on the cerebrovascular system, additional studies using tools such as multiphoton microscopy and transcranial Doppler are needed.” were added to the limitation section. We did not examine serum biomarkers of brain injury, nor did we assess functional neurologic or histologic outcome. These assessments require support and observation of the animals for a prolonged period of time, as biochemical, histologic, and functional neurologic consequences of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury are established over several days. However, because of our limited resources (shortage of personnel), we could not support and keep the animals for a long time period. As you pointed out above, biomarkers of brain injury and/or histologic findings, even when assessed in the early period after ROSC, might have provided important clues about the effects of intrathecal vasodilator administration. To address this issue, the sentences “Third, we did not determine long-term neurologic outcomes. In the future, we plan to determine whether the CBF-promoting effect of intrathecal SNP administration is beneficial for long-term neurologic outcomes.” in the discussion section were changed to “Fourth, we did not examine serum neurobiomarkers, nor did we assess functional neurologic or histologic outcomes. Longer-term care and observation of the animals are necessary to accurately assess these parameters, as neurologic consequences of HIBI are established over several days [45,46]. However, we were unable to support and house the animals for a long duration because of our limited resources. A study to determine the effects of intrathecal SNP administration on functional and histologic outcomes after cardiac arrest is currently underway in our laboratory.”. Accordingly, the following two references were added to the reference list: 45. Vondrakova D, Kruger A, Janotka M, Malek F, Dudkova V, Neuzil P, et al. Association of neuron-specific enolase values with outcomes in cardiac arrest survivors is dependent on the time of sample collection. Crit Care. 2017;21: 172. 46. Back T, Schüler OG. The natural course of lesion development in brain ischemia. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2004;89: 55–61. 2. The Authors mention that the doses of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine were chosen based on clinical studies, have the Authors assessed these doses using the dose conversion between animals and human via equivalent dose calculation? How does it correspond? : We administered SNP and nicardipine at doses consistent with those used in clinical studies (Thomas et al. Stroke. 1999;30: 1409–1416; Pathak et al. Br J Neurosurg. 2003;17: 306–310; Hafeez et al. Neurocrit Care. 2019;31: 399–405). Using the animal equivalent dose (0.18 mg/kg) obtained based on body surface area normalization, we calculated the doses to be administered to our animals as 4.17 mg. This dose is close to the dose of 4 mg used in the clinical studies. Given the larger volume and faster circulation of CSF in adult humans compared to young pigs, the CSF drug concentrations and their CBF-promoting effects after intrathecal administration of the same doses may be smaller in adult patients with cardiac arrest than in the animals in this study. To address issue, the sentences “Second, we did not optimize the doses of SNP and nicardipine. We administered SNP and nicardipine at doses consistent with those used in clinical studies [10,14,23]. Using the animal equivalent dose (0.18 mg/kg) obtained based on body surface area normalization, we calculated the doses to be administered to our animals as 4.17 mg. This dose is close to the dose of 4 mg used in the clinical studies [10,14,23]. Given the larger volume and faster circulation of CSF in adult humans compared to young pigs [39,42], the CSF drug concentrations and their CBF-promoting effects after intrathecal administration of the same doses may be smaller in adult patients with cardiac arrest than in the animals in this study.” were added to the limitation section. Accordingly, the following reference was added to the reference list: 42. Fil JE, Joung S, Zimmerman BJ, Sutton BP, Dilger RN. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging-based atlases for the young and adolescent domesticated pig (Sus scrofa). J Neurosci Methods. 2021;354: 109107. Thank you again for your invaluable suggestions for improving our manuscript. Sincerely, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313257.r002
22 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Masaki Mogi, Editor Effects of intrathecal administration of sodium nitroprusside and nicardipine on cerebral pial microcirculation, cortical tissue oxygenation, and electrocortical activity in the early post-resuscitation period in a porcine cardiac arrest model PONE-D-24-30125R1 Dear Dr. Jeung, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Masaki Mogi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors corrected the manuscript and now it may be accepted for the publication in PLOS One journal. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313257.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Masaki Mogi, Editor PONE-D-24-30125R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jeung, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Masaki Mogi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313257.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .